This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
CleanAirAct. Inflation Reduction Act. Provides approximately $370 billion dollars for cleanenergy and other climate-related programs. This law, signed on the first day of 1970, requires agencies to disclose the environmental effects of their actions. Reader’s Choice.
The case concerns the scope of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel power plants under Section 111(d) of the CleanAirAct (CAA). In January 2021, the D.C.
The decision focuses on EPA’s authority under a specific section of the CleanAirAct. But a closer read suggests more sweeping, longer-term implications for incentivizing the development of cleanenergy projects nationwide. What does this mean for cleanenergy projects? What is the case about? .
EPA did not revoke EPA’s underlying authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the CleanAirAct. That’s because while the cleanenergy transition is rapidly underway, it’s still too slow across the board and in far too many places, the fossil fuel industry continues to dig in and fight all attempts at change.
And yet, one of the largest threats to California’s clean transportation leadership in recent history has materialized right under our noses — and it’s coming from our own legislature. Our elected leaders understand that California’s transition to a cleanenergy future is essential both for the health of our residents and our economy.
Done right, a transformative shift to cleanenergy can also be a tremendous boon to community well-being, public health, and the economy. As a major emitting nation, we in the United States have a responsibility and an opportunity to reduce climate pollution, which will require swift, committed action by every sector of the economy.
This is despite the cleanenergy progress the power sector has experienced to date—and despite the groundwork laid for more progress from leading states, as well as the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). And more gas is slated to come. So what follows from that obligation?
The Infrastructure Act provides $5 billion in funding for states to help develop a national EV charging network. Last month, DOE solicited applications from states to develop cleanenergy projects. The Inflation Reduction Act provides another important source of state funding.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) included a major—forthcoming—refresh for one of the biggest policy drivers of the nation’s cleanenergy transition to date: tax credits subsidizing the deployment of clean electricity resources. These incentives aren’t just historically important.
But hydrogen can be cleanly produced and, with the right guardrails in place, that clean hydrogen can then be used to clean up polluting parts of the economy that can’t readily convert to running on renewable electricity. Otherwise, hydrogen will slow the cleanenergy transition, not speed it. the “three pillars”).
Decarbonizing the power sector is also a linchpin of economy-wide efforts to cut emissions, through electrification of energy use for transportation, industrial purposes and in residential and commercial buildings. The West Virginia v. With this decision, the Court has instead hamstrung that authority.
Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to carefully implement multiple new Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) tax credits, including the Section 45V Credit for Production of Clean Hydrogen (“45V”). The December proposal makes clear that Treasury understands the critical importance of getting implementation guidance right from the start.
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 amended the CleanAirAct to create the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a new program which will deploy $27 billion in competitive grants to mobilize financing for cleanenergy and climate projects that reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions, especially in disadvantaged communities.
This has been particularly true in your home state of California, which historically has set the clean car agenda for the rest of the country because of its waiver under the CleanAirAct to set its own air pollution standards.
EPA’s 2019 Affordable CleanEnergy Rule (ACE Rule). The 2019 ACE Rule replaced the 2015 Clean Power Plan as a means of regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants. hinged on a fundamental misconstruction of Section 7411(d) of the CleanAirAct.” Circuit issued an Order vacating U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the CleanAirAct. We are therefore calling on Congress to immediately pass the $555 billion in cleanenergy and climate investments included in the reconciliation bill. Supreme Court released its decision on West Virginia V.
Hydrogen’s supply-side has been buttressed by incentives from state and federal governments, refineries and utilities looking to extend the life of fossil fuel infrastructure, and renewable energy companies seeking to take advantage of the huge amounts of cleanenergy needed to produce green hydrogen.
Plaintiffs argued that the federal CleanAirAct (CAA), the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), and the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempt Rule 2305. The summary judgment briefing is analyzed in detail in this Latham blog post.
At stake was the ability to reduce carbon emissions as written in the ‘Clean Power Plan’ regulation under the auspices of the CleanAirAct that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) power to regulate “the best system of reducing emissions.”
Already, utility scale wind and solar electricity is cheaper to generate, and now is a critical time for Pennsylvania to invest in cleanenergy jobs. Pennsylvania has been a part of RGGI for over a year but has not been able to benefit due to the initiative being held up in the courts.
These summaries highlight where EPA is required to, for example, establish new grant or loan programs, implement protections and safeguards under the CleanAirAct such as the Methane Emissions Reduction Program, provide technical assistance, or take other steps to implement the IRA.
The federal CleanAirAct defines an indirect source as any facility, building, structure, or installation, or combination thereof, which generates or attracts mobile source activity that results in emissions of any pollutant (or precursor) for which there is an air quality standard. [6]
Since 2018, GASP reported on the backlogs that exist at ACHD and DEP’s six regional offices for processing applications for Title V Operating Permits, the permits that the CleanAirAct requires the largest sources of air pollution to have.
The Bad The Supreme Court has limited the EPA’s ability under the CleanAirAct to reduce greenhouse gases, ruling it does not have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions across the entire energy sector but can only do so on a station-by-station basis. We need bold action.
Meanwhile, defining “clean hydrogen” to reward hydrogen that is actually clean results in the scale-up of a hydrogen sector readily and robustly climate-aligned, with the right technologies built in the right places at the right times and the right pace. And yet, the dazzling prospect of easy money threatens to blind.
Before PennFuture, Stepp was the Director of ITIF’s Center for CleanEnergy Innovation (CCEI), where he managed and directed high-profile energy and climate policy initiatives at the state, national, and international level. energy technology policy.
On August 16, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (or “IRA”), widely hailed as the most ambitious piece of climate legislation in U.S. The bill also has healthcare and prescription drug provisions, makes tax code changes unrelated to climate and energy, and guarantees federal land on- and offshore for oil and gas drilling.)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had failed to fulfill its non-discretionary obligation under Section 321(a) of the CleanAirAct to conduct evaluations of loss or shifts in employment that might result from implementation of the CleanAirAct. Murray Energy Corp. McCarthy , No.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget assesses its spending to be around $485 billion, of which around $386 billion goes to climate and energy programs. The IRA’s funding is notable for providing enormous amounts of tax credits and rebates for cleanenergy, buildings, and transportation.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) released a request for information (RFI) regarding Section 60103 of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) , also known as the IRA’s “green bank” provisions. Local governments may have different views about the kinds of projects they would like to see prioritized, but there are likely areas of commonality.
In June 2019 the EPA repealed the Clean Power Plan and replaced it with the Affordable CleanEnergy (ACE) Rule, which is projected achieve a 0.7% The brief emphasizes that EPA has abdicated its duty under the CleanAirAct to meaningfully address carbon dioxide pollution and grapple with the grave threats of climate change.
The Clean Power Plan was based on section 111(d) of the CleanAirAct. There’s been a lot of discussion among academics and advocates about instead using section 115 of the CleanAirAct as a basis for carbon regulations. Here are the options going forward for regulating existing power plants.
President John F Kennedy introduced the CleanAirAct in the US as one of many introduced in developed nations with heavy industry (15). Energy Conservation. We live in an age of dwindling fossil fuels and inaction on renewable energy. This is one of the most important issues of our time.
It was the at the core of the previous challenge to President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which the Supreme Court rejected in West Virginia v. Fossil power plants could offset emissions by investing in new natural gas and renewable energy generation sources. This language, particularly the bolded text, is important.
The industry has argued that in EPA has eschewed requiring changes in a plant’s proposed fuel mix in implementing another part of the CleanAirAct, which deals with pollution from new plants. Although I don’t see West Virginia case as a barrier, there could be more mundane legal issues.
The all of the above approach to cleanenergy is the principal reason the U.S. Diverse climate solutions will drive the broadest economic growth, job creation, and expedite the transition to a cleanenergy economy – and thereby create opportunity and limit pollution exposure for all Americans.
The all of the above approach to cleanenergy is the principal reason the U.S. Diverse climate solutions will drive the broadest economic growth, job creation, and expedite the transition to a cleanenergy economy – and thereby create opportunity and limit pollution exposure for all Americans.
Although this is appropriate and in keeping with the structure of the CleanAirAct, each of the multi-state RTOs like PJM operate a single dispatch. As a result, states will need to coordinate and work closely together to ensure that the individual state plans work well on a regional basis. Comitta, Sen. Santarsiero, Rep.
The paper addressed the CleanEnergy Standard and carbon taxing, but excluded carbon capture and nuclear energy. Senator Capito questioned how Mr. Uhlmann’s stance on the CleanEnergy Standard would align with his EPA nominated role.
the Departments of Interior and Energy). In the first decade-plus of this Century, about half of the states actively sought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote cleanenergy alternatives to coal. But the federal government needs help, and I believe we should look to the states to provide such assistance.
Methane Emissions EPA announced it would reconsider regulations for the oil and gas industry under Section 111 of the CleanAirAct and Subpart W of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. EPA also announced it would reconsider risk management rules that cover oil and natural gas refineries and chemical facilities.
The Climate Solutions plaintiffs argue that I-2066 violates Washingtons single subject rule by requiring voters who may support affirming access to natural gas service, to vote for unrelated repeals and other changes to state law provisions that promote cleanenergy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (among other unrelated changes).
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content